c e p s Journal | Vol.

8 | No1 | Year 2018 139

doi: 10.26529/cepsj.492

Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: What English

Language Learners Perceive to Be Effective and
Ineffective Strategies

Seyyed Hatam Tamimi Sa’d*1 and Fereshte Rajabi2

• Vocabulary constitutes an essential part of every language-learning en-

deavour and deserves scholarly attention. The objective of the present
study was three-fold: 1) exploring Iranian English language learners’
Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLSs), 2) examining language learners’
perceptions of vocabulary learning, and 3) exploring Iranian English lan-
guage teachers’ Vocabulary Teaching Strategies (VTSs). In total, 145 inter-
mediate learners of English as a foreign language, consisting of 114 males
and 31 females aged 15 to 27, participated in the study. The triangulated
data were collected using three tools: questionnaires, interviews, and class
observations. Sixty-seven learners (31 females and 36 males) filled out a
56-statement questionnaire, adopted and adapted from Takač (2008) and
translated into Persian. The questionnaire comprised two parts, enquiring
as to the learners’ VLSs and the teachers’ VTSs. The findings indicated
that females and males differed significantly in their reported VLSs and
their teachers’ use of various VTSs. Additionally, 78 learners were inter-
viewed as to their perceptions of effective and ineffective VLSs as well as
VTSs. The findings revealed that the most effective VLSs were reported
to be: a) reciting, repeating and listening to words, b) using words, and c)
memorising words while the most effective VTSs revolved around: a) ex-
planation, b) repetition, and c) dictation. The observations also confirmed
the findings obtained via the questionnaire and interviews. In general, the
findings are indicative of the limited repertoire of vocabulary acquisition
techniques employed by Iranian EFL learners, hence the need for strategy
training in how to acquire vocabulary.

Keywords: EFL learners, strategies, target language, vocabulary learn-

ing, vocabulary teaching

1 *Corresponding Author. Iran Language Institute, Iran; shtamimi90@gmail.com.

2 Arak University, Iran.
140 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

Poučevanje in učenje besedišča: Katere so uspešne in

neuspešne strategije po mnenju učencev angleškega
jezika

Seyyed Hatam Tamimi Sa’d in Fereshte Rajabi

• Besedišče predstavlja eno ključnih vlog pri učenju tujega jezika, zato si
zasluži našo znanstveno pozornost. Sledeča študija si je zastavila tri cilje:
1) preučevanje iranskih učencev angleškega jezika in njihovih strategij
za učenje besedišča, 2) raziskovanje, kako učenci tujega jezika dojemajo
učenje besedišča, in 3) preučevanje iranskih učiteljev angleškega jezika
in njihovih strategij za poučevanje besedišča. V raziskavi je sodelova-
lo 145 učencev (nadaljevalcev) angleščine kot tujega jezika, od tega je
bilo 114 moških in 31 žensk, starih od 15 do 27 let. Triangulacijski po-
datki so bili zbrani z uporabo treh orodij: vprašalnika, intervjujev in
opazovanjem razredov. 67 učencev (31 žensk in 36 moških) je izpolnilo
vprašalnik s 56 vprašanji, ki je bil vzet iz Takač (2008) in prilagojen ter
nato preveden v perzijščino. Vprašalnik je bil sestavljen iz dveh delov in
je povpraševal po strategijah učencev pri učenju besedišča in strategijah
učiteljev pri poučevanju besedišča. Rezultati so pokazali, da se ženske in
moški občutno razlikujejo glede na odgovore o njihovih strategijah za
učenje besedišča in o strategijah za poučevanje besedišča, ki jih upora-
bljajo njihovi učitelji. 78 učencev je bilo intervjuvanih o njihovem zaz-
navanju uspešnih in neuspešnih strategij za učenje besedišča ter strategij
za poučevanje besedišča. Rezultati so pokazali, da so najbolj uspešne
strategije za učenje besedišča naslednje: a) recitiranje, ponavljanje in
poslušanje besed, b) uporaba besed, in c) učenje besed na pamet, med-
tem ko so bile najbolj uspešne strategije za poučevanje besedišča sledeče:
a) razlaga, b) ponavljanje, in c) narek. Opazovanja so prav tako potrdila
rezultate, ki smo jih pridobili s pomočjo vprašalnika in intervjujev. Na
splošno te ugotovitve kažejo na to, da obstaja omejen repertoar tehnik za
pridobivanje besedišča, ki jih uporabljajo iranski učenci angleščine kot
tujega jezika, zato obstaja potreba po učenju strategij, kako pridobivati
besedišče.

Ključne besede: učenci angleščine kot tujega jezika, strategije, ciljni

jezik, učenje besedišča, poučevanje besedišča
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 141

Introduction

It goes without saying that vocabulary plays a pivotal role in every en-
deavour to learn a new language. The importance of the lexicon has been rec-
ognised in almost every language-teaching method from the traditional Silent
Way in which the most versatile and functional vocabulary was emphasised
(Richards & Rodgers, 1999) to the more recent Communicate Language Teach-
ing in which teachers utilise a wide variety of techniques such as definition,
synonyms and antonyms, to teach vocabulary (Savignon, 2002).
Vocabulary is believed to be the cornerstone of language courses (Torki,
2011). Vocabulary acquisition also remains a very active area of research with
significant implications to inform practice (Adolphs & Schmitt, 2004), and it is
assumed that growth in vocabulary takes place as a result of gains in language
proficiency (Milton & Alexiou, 2009). Therefore, research on vocabulary teach-
ing has also assumed central importance in language teaching research (Milton
& Alexiou, 2012). Over a decade ago, Read (2000, p. 1) cautioned that ‘even at an
advanced level, learners are aware of limitations in their knowledge of second
language (or L2) words’. Researching vocabulary learning (VL) is of valuable
help to pedagogy (Laufer, 1998) as ‘vocabulary is now a current focus in ESL
pedagogy and research’ (Wei, 2007, p. 94).
Furthermore, successful vocabulary acquisition has been associated
with successful reading ability (Dickinson, Flushman, & Freiberg, 2009), with
becoming more communicative, able, and skilled (Milton & Alexiou, 2009),
among others. Conversely, failure in learning vocabulary is believed to lead to
difficulties in language reception and production (Wei, 2007) as well as to ‘a
sense of insecurity’ and ‘breakdown in communication’ (Hurtado, 2002). Saun-
ders (2013) contends that it is important to determine the VLSs favoured by stu-
dents prior to embarking on research that aims at determining the best strategy
to learn vocabulary. Accordingly, the present study is an attempt to delve into
the perceptions of Iranian EFL learners concerning the role and importance of
vocabulary, and the strategies utilised to learn and teach it.

Review of Literature

Although the scholarly literature on vocabulary learning (henceforth

VL) and vocabulary teaching (henceforth VT) is vast nowadays, vocabulary
was not given the recognition and acknowledgment it fully deserved due to the
overwhelming emphasis laid on syntax for decades (Hurtado, 2002). However,
this line of research remains an active area of debate and discussion so that,
142 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

in addition to research articles, full volumes have been dedicated to the issue
of vocabulary as well (e.g., Bogaards & Laufer, 2004; Gewehr, 2002; Richards,
Daller, Malvern, Meara, Milton, & Treffers-Daller, 2009).
A respectable stockpile of research has concentrated on distinct and di-
verse issues with regard to VL and VT. In this regard, Nilsen (1976) analysed
the concept of ‘context’ in providing words with meaning by means of contras-
tive semantics. Richards (1976) focused on the various aspects of vocabulary
as the building blocks of lexical competence. In contrast, Lawson and Hogben
(1996) examined VLSs of students of Italian as a foreign language by use of
think-aloud protocols with the result that the students were found to rely heav-
ily on repetition as a major VLS. Laufer (1998) examined gains in three types
of English vocabulary, passive, controlled active and free active. More recently,
Suberviola and Méndez (2002) discussed the necessity, methods and activities
of vocabulary acquisition, emphasising the importance of semantic maps in
enhancing students’ ability to recall words. Sex differences in VLS use were
examined by Catalán (2003) who determined that while many of the strate-
gies were common among males and females, females used higher percentages
of vocabulary strategies. Qian (2004) investigated lexical inferencing strate-
gies among Korean and Chinese students of English to find that a top-down
approach, specifically guessing from context, was the major strategy used. In
an experimental study, Zhiliang (2008) examined the effect of three learning
strategies on Chinese EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. The study
produced evidence for the superiority of the combined method of guessing and
an e-dictionary over guessing from context using an e-dictionary.
Various researchers have stressed distinct issues concerning lexis. Hur-
tado (2002), for instance, conducted a study on how to teach vocabulary, suggest-
ing that ‘lexical hierarchies’ are a suitable way of presenting words systematically
since ‘One of the paradoxes in VT in the FL classroom is that despite the amount
of time devoted to explaining and defining words, vocabulary is rarely presented
to students in a systematic way’ (p. 176). While Li (2004) and Sinhaneti and Kyaw
(2012) focused on rote learning in vocabulary acquisition and its efficacy, the size
of the vocabulary needed for unassisted comprehension of spoken and written
language was the central point of Nation (2006). Brown’s (2013) study demon-
strated that content and language-integrated learning (CLIL) has positive effects
on VL among medical students. Similarly, in an online survey, Saunders (2013)
showed that memorisation of the translations of words and writing them were
the most popular methods Japanese EFL learners used to learn vocabulary. In an-
other study, Akpınar and Bardakçı (2015) examined and highlighted the positive
impact of grouping and collocation on vocabulary retention.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 143

Further research can yield a more profound understanding of the nature

of vocabulary acquisition among language learners. As for the Iranian context,
examining the effect of the type of task with a focus on the type of dictionaries
on lexical learning among Iranian EFL university students, Maghsodi (2010)
demonstrated that monolingual dictionaries were more effective in lexical re-
tention. Ahour and Esfanjani (2015) determined that cognitive strategies were
the most frequent strategies used in learning vocabulary among poor Iranian
EFL learners. Considering the lack of rigorous research on VL and VT in an
EFL context like Iran, the present study set out to examine these two issues
further so as to provide more illuminating insights in this connection.

Research Questions

The present study aimed at exploring the beliefs of Iranian EFL learners
about FL vocabulary acquisition and instruction. Specifically, the study set out
to provide answers to the following research questions:
RQ 1. What are the most common VLSs of Iranian EFL learners?
RQ 2. Do Iranian male and female EFL learners differ significantly in their
VLS use?
RQ 3. What are the most common VTSs of Iranian EFL teachers as reported
by the learners?
RQ 4. Is there any significant difference in male and female learners’ reports of
teachers’ VTS use of Iranian EFL teachers?

Method

Participants

The overall number of the participants was 145 intermediate learners of

English as a foreign language (EFL) including 114 males and 31 females. In gen-
eral, three data collection tools were used in the current study: questionnaires,
interviews and class observations. Two groups of participants took part in the
study: the questionnaire respondents (67 participants) and interviewees (78
participants). Since it was too time-consuming and cumbersome to administer
both data collection instruments to all the participants, the questionnaire was
administered to 67 participants while the remaining 78 other participants were
interviewed only. Therefore, both quantitative and qualitative data were gener-
ated. By doing so, which was because of practicality issues, more reliable data
were produced. Further details on the participants are provided below.
144 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

The questionnaire respondents consisted of 67 students of English (31 fe-

males and 36 males). They were within the age range of 15–27 (mean =18.5) and
came from Ahvaz, Iran. As regards their ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, the
participants consisted of 63 Persians (94%) and four Arabs (6%). Furthermore,
regarding their educational background, the participants included 48 high school
students (72%) and 19 university students/graduates (28%). All the participants
were at the intermediate level of their English language learning. Additionally,
regarding the duration for which the participants’ teachers had been teaching the
participants when the study was conducted, the participants reported that their
teachers had taught them for almost one year in 92.5% of the cases, two years in
6%, and three years in 1.5% of the cases. The participants were also asked to report
their last score in English out of 100. The results for this part showed that the
scores varied from 60 to 98, with 15% of the scores falling within 60–84 and the
remaining 85% falling within the range of 85–98. Finally, the demographic infor-
mation elicited indicated that while 57% of the participants had started learning
English before their teenage years, 43% had started it after their first teenage year
(i.e., after age 13). (To see the questionnaire, see Tables 1 & 3).

Instruments

Triangulation is believed to enhance the reliability and validity of re-

search and is divided into three types: theoretical, investigatory, and methodo-
logical triangulation (Mackey & Gass, 2005). As Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen (2010)
pointed out, ‘Triangulation seeks to examine the convergence of evidence from
different methods that study the same phenomenon or to corroborate findings
from one method by examining the findings using a different method’ (p. 561).
The current study benefited from methodological triangulation by using differ-
ent data collection instruments, and the required data were gathered by means
of three data collection tools, as outlined below.

Vocabulary Learning and Teaching Strategies Questionnaire

In the first place, the data required for this study were collected by means
of a questionnaire, adopted and adapted from Takač (2008), which consisted of
two parts which comprised 56 statements. The participants were required to
select each statement on a three-point Likert scale (i.e., 1: Never, 2: Sometimes,
and 3: Always). Part 1 included 27 statements enquiring as to the learners’ VLSs
while Part 2 comprised 29 statements enquiring about the teachers’ VTSs. The
original questionnaire was in English but for the better comprehensibility it
was translated into Persian, the participants’ mother tongue. The translation
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 145

was checked out by two more researchers who spoke Persian as their native
language and who were also fluent in English. Based on the researchers’ com-
ments, the questionnaire underwent some slight modifications.

Semi-structured Interviews
Flexibility has been mentioned as one of the most important features of
interviews (Ary et al., 2010). In line with this feature, the participants were in-
terviewed so that a deeper understanding of their perceptions of VLSs and VTSs
could be gained. The interviewees consisted of 78 male EFL learners with char-
acteristics similar to the questionnaire respondents’. The interviews revolved
around such aspects of vocabulary knowledge as the students’ views of the most
and least effective VLSs and VTSs, the interviewees’ own VLSs and the students’
and teachers’ role in vocabulary acquisition. The interview data are reported sep-
arately in the Results section, and the interview questions appear in Appendix A.

Classroom Observation
As Mackey and Gass (2005) noted, observations, commonly used in
classroom research for gathering data on such phenomena as language, ac-
tivities and instruction, ‘can allow the study of a behaviour at close range with
many important contextual variables present’ (p. 187). This final phase of data
collection included class observations which were done following the purpose-
built Observation Checklist (Appendix B) in six randomly selected private lan-
guage institute classes on a period of six months (composing three consecutive
institute semesters). In total, 10 class observations were done.
The data collection procedure included a phase in which the question-
naire was piloted with a number of 20 students with features similar to those
of the main and final sample of the study. As predicted, the answers provided
by the participants in the pilot study suggested that some of the statements
of the questionnaire needed further clarification, modification, and rewording.
For example, the Persian translation of Statement 15 (Part 2) was further clari-
fied as the participants pointed out that they found it ambiguous. Furthermore,
the original ‘spaced word practice’ (Statement 24, Part 1) was replaced with the
more familiar (and more ‘popular’) ‘Leitner box’ exercise. As a result, the num-
ber of the questionnaire statements was not changed but the content was modi-
fied to assure the participants’ full comprehension.
146 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

Data Analysis

The data were collected in the order in which the instruments were
introduced above. That is to say, first, the questionnaire was administered to
the participants. Next, the participants were interviewed and, finally, the class
observations were conducted. The quantitative data were analysed using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software by means of descriptive
statistics and independent samples t-tests, which were utilised to compare the
results of gender differences in perceptions. Additionally, qualitative interview
data were analysed by extracting, classifying, and categorising the strategies
and themes mentioned by the participants. Finally, the data gathered through
class observations were engendered by use of an observation checklist.

Results

The findings are presented in this section which, for readability pur-
poses, has been divided into two main parts, namely ‘vocabulary learning
strategies’ and ‘vocabulary teaching strategies’. The questionnaire results and
the interview results are then provided for each section. It is noteworthy that
most interviewees named more than one VTS and VLS, hence the discrepancy
between the number of the interviewees and that of the VLSs and VTSs. The
boldfaced percentages in Tables 1 and 3 indicate the highest percentages for
each statement for both males and females.

Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLSs)

As mentioned earlier, the questionnaire was intended to provide in-

sights into, primarily, the participants’ VLSs and, secondarily, their reports of
teachers’ VTSs. Table 1 presents the participants’ VLS use. It also presents the
percentages with which female and male participants selected each VL strategy.
Therefore, this part is an attempt to answer the first research question.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 147

Table 1
VLS Results across Gender (N=67)

Female Male

3-Always

3-Always
2-Some-

2-Some-
No. Statement

1-Never

1-Never
times

times
I use new words in a sentence in order to
1 6.5 67.7 25.8 13.9 66.7 19.4
remember them.
I make word lists and write their translations
2 12.9 38.7 48.4 36.1 22.2 41.7
in my mother tongue.
I review words regularly outside the
3 3.2 71 25.8 13.9 52.8 33.3
classroom.
I test myself to check if I remember the
4 3.2 48.4 48.4 8.3 41.7 50
words.
I pick up words from films and TV
5 6.5 51.6 41.9 11.1 30.6 58.3
programmes I watch.
If I cannot remember a word in a
6 conversation, I use another one with a similar 3.2 54.8 41.9 2.8 50 47.2
meaning.
I write down words while I read books and
7 51.6 48.4 0 38.9 44.4 7
magazines for pleasure.
8 I plan for vocabulary learning in advance. 35.5 48.4 16.1 44.4 33.3 8
9 I remember a word if I see it written down. 0 45.2 54.8 0 47.2 9
I say a word out loud repeatedly in order to
10 9.7 19.4 71 27.8 41.7 30
remember it.
I connect an image with a word’s meaning in
11 16.1 61.3 22.6 25 50 11
order to remember it.
I associate new words with the ones I already
12 9.7 67.7 22.6 30.6 41.7 12
know.
I write down words when I watch films and
13 41.9 51.6 6.5 47.2 38.9 13
TV programmes.
I write down words repeatedly to remember
14 22.6 64.5 12.9 44.4 44.4 14
them.
I read and leaf through a dictionary to learn
15 48.4 41.9 9.7 41.7 47.2 15
some new words.
I make a mental image a word’s written form
16 25.8 48.4 25.8 44.4 36.1 16
in order to remember it.
If I cannot remember a word in a
17 conversation, I describe it in my own words in 3.2 64.5 32.3 16.7 55.6 27.8
the foreign language.
I imagine a context in which a word could be
18 12.9 71 16.1 27.8 52.8 19.4
used in order to remember it.
148 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

Female Male

3-Always

3-Always
2-Some-

2-Some-
No. Statement

1-Never

1-Never
times

times
I translate the words into my mother tongue
19 3.2 16.1 80.6 8.3 19.4 72.2
to understand them.
I group words together in order to remember
20 45.2 38.7 16.1 36.1 52.8 11.1
them.
I repeat the word mentally in order to
21 3.2 29 67.7 5.6 38.9 55.6
remember it.
I listen to songs in the foreign language and
22 9.7 38.7 51.6 22.2 33.3 44.4
try to understand the words.
I pick up words while reading books and
23 9.7 58.1 32.3 5.6 47.2 47.2
magazines in the foreign language.
I use Leitner’s box in order to remember
24 77.4 19.4 3.2 69.4 25 5.6
words.
I connect words to physical objects to
25 38.7 51.6 9.7 55.6 36.1 8.3
remember them.
I test myself with word lists to check if I
26 9.7 29 61.3 8.3 44.4 47.2
remember the words.
27 I pick up words from the Internet. 29 58.1 12.9 19.4 33.3 47.2

As can be seen from Table 1, the three most frequent strategies include:
a) Statement 1: using words in sentences (67.2%), b) Statement 19: translation
of words into mother tongue (76.1%) and c) Statement 21: mental repetition of
words (61.2%). In contrast, this table also shows that the least frequent strategies
are: a) Statement 13: writing down words from films and TV programs (44.8%;
Never), b) Statement 15: using dictionaries (44.8%; Never) and c) Statement 24:
using Leitner’s box (73.1%; Never).
Table 2 displays the results of an independent samples test which was
run to examine if males and females differ significantly in their VLS use, an is-
sue that was addressed in the second question.

Table 2
Independent Samples Test of VLSs

t-test for Equality of Means

Questionnaire item
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Item 10 -3.286 65 .002 -.585
Item 27 2.499 65 .01 .439

Note. t Item 10 (65) = -3.286; p < .05. t Item 27 (65) = .68; p < .05.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 149

According to Table 2, males and females differ significantly in state-

ments 10 and 27. By referring to Table 1 above, one can understand that while
females are more willing than males to ‘say out a word out loud to memorise it’
(statement 10), males are more inclined than females toward ‘picking up words
from the Internet’.
As Table 1 indicates, using words in sentences is among the most fre-
quent VLSs. The next common strategy was found to be translating target lan-
guage (TL) words into the mother tongue. This finding concurs with results ob-
tained by studies carried out in other cultures, for example, Chinese (Li, 2004)
and Burmese (Sinhaneti & Kyaw, 2012). This strategy is believed to be ineffec-
tive and to lead to unsuccessful vocabulary learning (Suberviola & Méndez,
2002). Finally, the third most favoured strategy was the mental repetition of
words. Another finding is the low interest of the learners in using dictionaries
and Leitner’s boxes, two strategies that have been documented to be effective
and essential tools for developing one’s lexical abilities and vocabulary reten-
tion (e.g., Bruton, 2007; Linares, 2002).
The low appeal of dictionaries to Iranian EFL learners is surprising and
can be attributed, tentatively, to their lack of what Linares (2002) terms ‘diction-
ary awareness’, asserting that, ‘a person with dictionary awareness is one who
knows where to find the information he needs and how to extract it’ (p. 163).
Linares further states that dictionaries can serve the purposes of vocabulary
learning independent of the teacher. Therefore, it can be assumed that diction-
aries can be used to foster learner autonomy to some extent. However, students
should be made aware of the superiority of monolingual dictionaries over bilin-
gual dictionaries as pointed out in the literature (e.g., Maghsodi, 2010).
The learners saw it as the teacher’s responsibility to expose them to a
considerable amount of contextualised vocabulary. Meara (2002) proposed that
exposing learners to large texts ‘provides enough examples for the meanings of
a core vocabulary to be identified with a fair degree of reliability’ (p. 405). Over-
all, the results of the interviews and the questionnaire clearly demonstrated that
the participants had three main concerns regarding the lexicon: spelling, pro-
nunciation and use. This conclusion is particularly grounded upon the partici-
pants’ responses in the interviews in which they declared they would write a
word to learn it, repeat it after the teacher or the CD to learn its pronunciation,
and ask their teachers for clarifying examples or look up a word in a dictionary
to see how and in what context it is utilised.
150 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

This section reports the findings obtained by means of the interviews,

which were carried out with 78 participants. The interview transcripts were
analysed closely, and the VLSs named by the learners were extracted and pre-
sented in Figures 1.
Figure 1 displays the VLSs that the interviewees reported to be effective
in learning English vocabulary.

Figure 1. Effective VLSs (Interview results).

According to Figure 1, reading and repeating constitutes the learners’

most favoured strategy to learn vocabulary followed by using words in a spe-
cific context. The participants also stated that every strategy that is not in ac-
cordance with the abovementioned ‘effective’ VLSs is ineffective and should not
be used by learners.
The participants’ responses, both in the interviews and to the question-
naire, show that they perceive the role of the L1, if judiciously used in and out of
class, as facilitating the VL process. The idea of the use of the students’ L1 has been
hotly debated in the literature with L1 viewed as both a help (Auerbach, 1993;
Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Jafari & Shokrpour, 2013; Khresheh, 2012; Mart, 2013) and
a hindrance (Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Mart, 2013). Additionally, while the partici-
pants mentioned that they were interested in the use of more innovative ways of
learning vocabulary such as through videos, clips, applications, imagery, laptops,
computers, and so on, their information concerning how this should be carried
out was limited. This amounts to saying that students are in need of considerable
cognizance in how to utilise new VL techniques on their own.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 151

Vocabulary Teaching Strategies (VTSs)

This part presents the results of the students’ reports of the VTSs prac-
ticed by the teachers; therefore, it is an attempt to answer the third research
question.
Table 3 presents the results of VTS use as selected by females and males
with the purpose of highlighting the differences across gender groups.

Table 3
VTS Results across Gender (N=67)

Female Male

3-Always

3-Always
2-Some-

2-Some-
No. Statement 1-Never

1-Never
times

times
The teacher helps us to remember words by
1 19.4 74.2 6.5 30.6 50 19.4
giving us the initial letter of the word.
2 The teacher tells us to group words. 61.3 29 9.7 61.1 30.6 8.3
The teacher gives us (oral and written) tests
3 16.1 48.4 35.5 38.9 19.4 41.7
to check our vocabulary knowledge.
The teacher tells us to mentally repeat
4 12.9 41.9 45.2 11.1 33.3 55.6
words in order to remember them.
The teacher gives us instructions and advice
5 3.2 71 25.8 19.4 52.8 27.8
on how to study words at home.
The teacher gives several example sentences
6 3.2 29 67.7 5.6 36.1 58.3
in which new words are used.
In tests, the teacher gives us a word and we
7 35.5 41.9 22.6 63.9 19.4 16.7
have to use it in a sentence.
8 The teacher writes new words on the board. 25.8 48.4 25.8 16.7 13.9 69.4
The teacher asks us to review words regu-
9 0 51.6 48.4 5.6 16.7 77.8
larly at home.
The teacher uses real objects when explain-
10 38.7 48.4 12.9 36.1 44.4 19.4
ing the meaning of new words.
The teacher tells us to make a mental picture
11 of the new word’s meaning in order to 38.7 58.1 3.2 38.9 50 11.1
remember it.
When testing, the teacher shows a picture
12 and we have to supply the word in the 67.7 22.6 9.7 63.9 33.3 2.8
foreign language.
The teacher tells us to write down the word
13 45.2 48.4 6.5 66.7 27.8 5.6
several times to remember it.
152 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

Female Male

3-Always

3-Always
2-Some-

2-Some-
No. Statement

1-Never

1-Never
times

times
The teacher asks for translation into the
14 64.5 29 6.5 69.4 27.8 2.8
mother tongue.
The teacher draws the word’s meaning on
15 45.2 51.6 3.2 52.8 30.6 16.7
the board.
When testing, the teacher gives us a word in
16 the mother tongue and we have to translate 80.6 16.1 3.2 86.1 11.1 2.8
it into the foreign language.
The teacher explains the new word’s mean-
17 0 19.4 80.6 0 19.4 80.6
ing in the foreign language.
The teacher asks us to look up the new word
18 0 61.3 38.7 11.1 44.4 44.4
in the dictionary.
The teacher tells us to use the new word in
19 9.7 12.9 77.4 5.6 47.2 47.2
a sentence.
The teacher advises us to write down words
20 we hear in films and TV programmes in the 48.4 45.2 6.5 44.4 36.1 19.4
foreign language.
When we cannot remember a word, the
21 teacher reminds us of where it appears in 54.8 35.5 9.7 63.9 25 11.1
the textbook.
The teacher advises us to write down words
22 when we read books and magazines for 48.4 41.9 9.7 30.6 50 19.4
pleasure in the foreign language.
The teacher points to the similarities in
23 sound and meaning between mother tongue 22.6 64.5 12.9 25 44.4 30.6
and foreign language words (cognates).
The teacher connects new words with the
24 6.5 67.7 25.8 8.3 50 41.7
ones we have learnt previously.
The teacher tells us to imagine a situation in
25 which the new word would be used in order 32.3 54.8 12.9 16.7 58.3 25
to remember it.
The teacher describes a situation in which
26 12.9 64.5 22.6 16.7 22.2 61.1
the new word could be used.
The teacher tells us to underline new words
27 35.5 51.6 12.9 36.1 25 38.9
in the text.
The words we learn are repeatedly men-
28 6.5 51.6 41.9 5.6 38.9 55.6
tioned in foreign language classes.
When testing, the teacher gives the foreign
29 language word and we have to translate it 80.6 16.1 3.2 91.7 8.3 0
into our mother tongue.

As shown in Table 3, the participants reported that, most frequently of

all, teachers sought recourse in: a) Statement 6: providing example sentences
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 153

(62.7%), b) Statement 9: asking students to review words at home (64.2%), c)

Statement 17: explaining words in the FL (80.6%).
Additionally, the three least frequent VTSs were: a) Statement 14: trans-
lating FL words into mother tongue (67.2%; Never), b) Statement 16: transla-
tion of words from mother tongue into FL (83.6%%; Never) and c) Statement
29: translation of words from FL into mother tongue (86.6%; Never). As can
be seen, other less common VTSs also include: Statement 2: Grouping words
(61.2%; Never), Statement 12: showing pictures to assess vocabulary acquisition
(65.7%; Never) and Statement 21: Reminding students of where a word appears
in a book (59.7%; Never).
As with the VLSs, an independent samples test was run to check if there
was any significant difference between males and females in their views of VTSs
(Table 4 below). This part addresses the fourth research question.

Table 4
Independent Samples Test of VTSs (Part 2)

t-test for Equality of Means

Questionnaire item
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Item 8 2.856 65 .006 .528
Item 26 2.035 65 .046 .348

Note. t Item 8 (65) = 2.856; p < .05. t Item 26 (65) = 2.035; p < .05

As Table 4 shows, according to the participants’ reports, teachers made

more use of the boards (statement 8) and described a situation for the use of the
new word (statement 26) more often with males than with females.
This part presents the results of the interviews concerning the most ef-
fective VTSs. Figure 2 displays the VTSs that the interviewees considered effec-
tive and helpful.
154 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

Figure 2. Effective VTSs (Interview results).

According to Figure 2, the participants regarded explanation in the TL

accompanied by the provision of examples and repetition as the first two most
effective strategies. Explanation in L1 was, however, the least favoured VTS. No-
tably, while the former strategy was found to be congruent with some previous
research, the latter did not support it (see, e.g., Alexiou, 2001).
Figure 3 displays those strategies that the interviewees considered to be
ineffective and unhelpful for teaching vocabulary.

Figure 3. Ineffective VTSs (Interview results).

It can be seen from Figure 3 that superficial attention to words is re-

garded as the major cause of the unsuccessful instruction of foreign language
words. This is followed by inadequate or complicated and, as a result, inexpli-
cable explanation of words, particularly in the TL. The third factor was stated
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 155

to be the unreasonably excessive use of L1. Finally, the atmosphere of the class-
room setting along with a number of ‘miscellaneous’ causes were mentioned as
other influential factors.
As reported in Table 3, the questionnaire respondents reported that their
teachers utilised three major strategies: providing explanations in the FL, exam-
ple sentences as well as asking students to review words out of the class setting.
It is very comforting to see that Iranian EFL teachers use these strategies, and it
is expected that such strategies will result in the learners’ improved retention of
words. Interestingly, although using context to teach vocabulary is enthusiasti-
cally recommended by researchers, Lawson and Hogben (1996) suggested that
a distinction should be made between contextualising a word for the generation
of meaning and contextualising it for the acquisition of meaning. They empha-
sised that these two functions of contextualisation are not of the same value and
reported, somewhat warningly, that although students were able to generate
meaning for words, they were not able to recall them for subsequent use. Law-
son and Hogben attributed this inability to teachers’ focus on contextualisation
for meaning generation instead of their focusing on the acquisitional contextu-
alisation. Other researchers have stressed the significance of training learners
in the use of context as an effective strategy in comprehending texts replete
with unfamiliar vocabulary (e.g., Walters, 2006) as well as to enhance students’
collocational ability with the purpose of subsequent lexical improvement (e.g.,
Akpınar & Bardakçı, 2015).
The findings of the current study do not lend full support to some previ-
ous studies. For instance, unlike Takač’s (2008) findings, the results of the pre-
sent study confirm that the participants’ VLS use is congruent with and parallel
to their teachers’ VTS use. To set an example, learners used words in sentences
to learn them and teachers provided the students with example sentences to
teach words. Ježek (2016) defined context as ‘the set of words that immediately
precede or follow it, that is, its immediate linguistic environment’ (p. 55), divid-
ing it into three different kinds of syntactic, semantic, and situational (or prag-
matic or extra-linguistic) context. Implied in this division of contexts is the fact
that teachers are to be made aware that they can rely on these different types of
contexts to teach vocabulary. Emphasis on context from which the meaning of
unknown words can be guessed is considerable (see, e.g., Qian, 2004).
In contrast, the results confirm Takač’s (2008) findings in that the partic-
ipants were found to use VLSs that were not necessarily utilised by teachers. For
example, while the majority of the students translated words from the FL into
their mother tongue, teachers were reported to use this strategy the least fre-
quently of all (see Tables 1 and 3). To set another example, while teachers were
156 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

reported to emphasise dictionary use, nearly half of the participants asserted

that they never used dictionaries to learn vocabulary. This finding warrants at-
tention since the importance of the use of dictionaries in learning vocabulary
has been regularly acknowledged in the literature (Linares, 2002).
The last question of the questionnaire enquired as to the amount of im-
portance of both the teachers’ and learners’ role in vocabulary acquisition, re-
quiring the participants to assign a percentage to the teacher and learner. Figure
4 presents the results of the calculation of the mean of percentages assigned to
such roles.

Figure 4. Importance of Teacher’s and Learner’s Role in Vocabulary Acquisition.

According to Figure 4 and the percentages reported for the roles of

the teacher and learner, the participants viewed both roles as almost equally
important.

A word on Gender

Regarding the role of gender, the results indicated that the two gender
groups differed significantly in both their VLSs and VTSs although the dif-
ferences were limited to only four statements of the questionnaire. Gender-
induced differences have already been documented in the literature. Catalán
(2003), for instance, found differences in the number and type of strategies that
males and females used to learn vocabulary and attributed these differences to
the possible discrepancies in the perceptions of the two genders. The results of
our study can be taken as further evidence to support Catalán’s (2003) tentative
statement, thus suggesting that teachers might wish to utilise different strate-
gies to teach vocabulary in male-only or female-only classes.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 157

This conclusion well applies to the Iranian context owing to the policy of
single-sex education followed nation-wide. On the face of it, our results might
imply that teachers should utilise different strategies to teach vocabulary to the
two genders. As Takač (2008) also obtained similar results, the significant dif-
ferences found between the two genders’ VLSs and VTSs were both very low in
number, and the mean score differences were not very high. It may, therefore, be
more reasonable to ignore the possible theoretical significance of these differ-
ences and instead focus on the VLSs and VTSs as the findings of major interest.

Emerging Categories

By casting a closer glance at the results of the interviews, as shown in

Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4, it can be concluded that almost all of these VLSs and VTSs,
both effective and ineffective, can be grouped under three unifying, interre-
lated, and perhaps inter-dependent, sets as shown schematically below:

Vocabulary-related factors

Teaching-/teacher-related Learning-/learner-related
factors factors

Figure 5. Three sets of factors influencing VL.

In a sense, Figure 5 can be said to provide a synopsis of all the findings

of the present study in that it comprises issues concerning the vocabulary itself
(e.g., synonymy, polysemy, pronunciation, etc.), issues regarding the context of
teaching vocabulary (e.g., creating a playful and funny setting, providing good,
comprehensible explanations, etc.) and finally factors relating to the learning
and learner including repetition, constant, steady practice, and so on. The find-
ings demonstrate that the participants have deemed all these factors to be inter-
twined, one set of factors influencing the other, one complementing the other
but each somehow independent of the other.
158 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

Observational Results

The data engendered through class observations were congruent with

the questionnaire and interview data. Specifically, teachers were observed to
rely on explanations, giving example sentences and synonyms and antonyms
more than any other VT techniques. Games, realia and objects were rarely used
and were mostly limited to classes with young learners or beginners. Most of
the objects included those already present in class such as whiteboard, desks,
tables and neighbouring objects such as apartments, streets, and shops. Rarely,
if ever, did teachers bring any objects to class except for personal things, such as
car keys, sunglasses, and pens.
It was also observed that students were more attentive when the class
atmosphere turned more playful. This playfulness was at times due to cultural
reasons, too. For instance, in clarifying the use of ‘Miss’, a male teacher stated
that ‘Miss’ is used as an attention-seeking address term when a woman is ad-
dressed, giving the example: ‘May I have your phone number, Miss?’. Interest-
ingly enough, occasional situations such as these produced a high level of at-
tention among learners. This congenial atmosphere, notwithstanding, was only
sporadic and it seems that teachers did not favour it for such reasons as it be-
coming tiresome, fatigue, burnout, discipline issues and so forth.
Generally, as was predicted from the questionnaire and interview results,
the class observations lent much credence to the questionnaire and interview
findings but the difference was that in the case of observations, more tangible,
practical findings were obtained. Teachers read the word list and the students
repeated after them. This technique, which on the surface of it seemed monoto-
nous and boring to adults, was mainly favoured by young learners. Repetition
was either choral or individual followed by teachers’ explanations, examples
and asking students to present their own examples. This technique was used
in nearly all classes observed though not to the same extent. The observations
therefore confirm the findings obtained from the questionnaire and interviews.

Conclusion

The main thrust of this research study was to capture a triangulated pic-
ture of VLSs among Iranian EFL learners along with a depiction of teachers’
VTSs. Implied in the discussion above is the fact that Iranian EFL learners use
a good variety of VLSs. Despite this finding, the participants asserted that their
teachers’ vocabulary instruction revolved around certain types of VTSs. The
claim here is not that teachers’ VTSs are ineffective but that teaching vocabulary
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 159

may require the use of a larger number of strategies. The limited number of
VTSs practiced by teachers might be attributable to the fact that teachers them-
selves are not trained in employing strategies wider in variety and number. If
this statement turns out to be true, then it follows that VT training workshops
and courses, by way of example, are to be set up where teachers are trained as to
how to enhance students’ lexical repertoire and their VL techniques.
Provided that there is a consensus among researchers on this issue, then
research attention will understandably shift to teachers who are expected to
shoulder the burden of strategy teaching in VL. The use of tasks in teaching vo-
cabulary has also been strongly recommended as highly useful VTSs (Brown,
2013; Keating, 2008). The suggestion here is that the participants’ mention of
games as ways of VL is indicative of their interest in tasks as methods of VL.

Implications of Study

The present study has clear implications to inform practice. As Qian

(2004) pointed out, unknown words can be perceived as potential obstacles to
comprehension. It, therefore, follows from this statement that teaching effective
VLSs will result in improved comprehension. Since, obviously, it is not feasible
to teach all the vocabulary items of the target language (TL) to the students,
it is then reasonable to predict that capitalising on teaching VLSs instead of
spending too much time and effort on teaching vocabulary items themselves
can result in more effective lexical learning. This conclusion is warranted and
can also lead to learner autonomy in VL as pointed out by Wei (2007).
Additionally, the learners’ slight tendency to use dictionaries is of sig-
nificance with the implication that learners should be made aware of the value
and importance of dictionaries in enhancing one’s lexical repertoire.

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

Further research, as Saunders (2013) asserts, is expected to focus on

whether students’ self-reported VLSs are effective or not. Indeed, this advice,
therefore, calls for experimental research on VL. In addition, future research
can be directed at exploring the possible relationships between such variables
as learning styles, multiple intelligences and personality types and VL. Previous
research has provided some evidence but there remains much to be explored
(see, e.g., Golaghaei & Sadighi, 2011).
160 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

References

Adolphs, S., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Vocabulary coverage according to spoken discourse context. In P.
Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp. 39–49). Amsterdam: John Benja-
mins Publishing Company.
Ahour, T., & Esfanjani, F. J. (2015). Vocabulary learning strategies used by poor Iranian high school
students. The Iranian EFL Journal, 11(1), 224–237.
Akpınar, K. D., & Bardakçı, M. (2015). The effect of grouping and presenting collocations on retention.
TESL-EJ, 18(4), 1–22.
Alexiou, T. (2001). Greek teachers’ preferences in ELT methodology for the teaching of vocabulary.
In E. M. Athanasopoulou (Ed.), Selected papers of the 15th International symposium on theoretical and
applied linguistics (pp. 485–490). Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–32.
Bogaards, P., & Laufer, B. (2004) (Eds.). Vocabulary in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign
language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 216–235.
Brown, P. S. (2013). Teaching a medical English CLIL course with vocabulary learning strategies in-
struction in Japan. The Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 275–304.
Bruton, A. (2007). Vocabulary learning from dictionary referencing and language feedback in EFL
translational writing. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 413–431.
Catalán, R. M. J. (2003). Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strategies. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 54–77.
Dickinson, D. K., Flushman, T. R., & Freiberg, J. B. (2009). Vocabulary, reading and classroom su-
pports for language. In B. Richards, M. H. Daller, D. D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-
-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 23–38). London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gewehr, W. (2002) (Ed.). Aspects of modern language teaching in Europe. New York, NY: Routledge.
Golaghaei, N., & Sadighi, F. (2011). Extroversion/introversion and breadth of vocabulary knowledge.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 1(3), 70–88.
Hurtado, C. J. (2002). Lexical hierarchies as a strategy of teaching vocabulary. In W. Gewehr (Ed.),
Aspects of modern language teaching in Europe (pp. 176–189). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jafari, S. M., & Shokrpour, N. (2013). The role of L1 in ESP classrooms: A triangulated approach. Inter-
national Journal of English and Education, 2(3), 90–104.
Ježek, E. (2016). The lexicon: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement
load hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 365–386.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 161

Khresheh, A. (2012). Exploring when and why to use Arabic in the Saudi Arabian EFL classroom:
Viewing L1 use as eclectic technique. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 78–88. Retrieved from www.
ccsenet.org/elt
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or
different? Applied Linguistic, 19(2), 255–271.
Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language students.
Language Learning, 46(1), 101–135.
Li, X. (2004). An analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ beliefs about the role of rote learning in vocabulary
learning strategies. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Sunderland, UK: University of Sunderland.
Linares, C. F. M. (2002). Dictionary awareness. In W. Gewehr (Ed.), Aspects of modern language tea-
ching in Europe (pp. 161–175). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-
sociates.
Maghsodi, M. (2010). Type of task and type of dictionary in incidental vocabulary acquisition. The
Asian EFL Journal, 12(1), 8–29.
Mart, Ç. T. (2013). The facilitating role of L1 in ESL classes. International Journal of Academic Research
in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 9–14. Retrieved from www.hrmars.com/journals
Meara, P. (2002). The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research, 18(4), 393–407.
Milton, J., & Alexiou, T. (2009). Vocabulary size and the common European framework of reference
for languages. In B. Richards, M. H. Daller, D. D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller
(Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 194–211). London, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Milton, J., & Alexiou, T. (2012). Vocabulary input, vocabulary uptake and approaches to language
teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 40(1), 1–5.
Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern
Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 63(1), 59–82.
Nilsen, D. L. F. (1976). Contrastive semantics in vocabulary instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 99–
104.
Qian, D. D. (2004). Second language lexical inferencing: Preferences, perceptions, and practices. In P.
Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp. 155–169). Amsterdam: John Benja-
mins Publishing Company.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, B., Daller, M. H., Malvern, D. D., Meara, P., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.) (2009).
Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77–90.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. C. (1999). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Saunders, J. M. (2013). Vocabulary study strategies: Prevalence among L2 learners. Polyglossia, 25,
19–26.
162 teaching and learning vocabulary: what english language learners perceive ...

Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice.
In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher
education (pp. 1–28). London, UK: Yale University Press.
Sinhaneti, K., & Kyaw, E. K. (2012). A study of the role of rote learning in vocabulary learning strategies
of Burmese students. US-China Education Review A, 12, 987–1005.
Suberviola, E. S., & Méndez, R. V. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition strategies. Didáctica (Lengua y Li-
teratura), 14, 233–250.
Takač, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Tavakoli, H. (2012). A dictionary of research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. Tehran:
Rahnama Press.
Torki, S. (2011). Teachers’ intention vs. learners’ attention: Do learners attend to what teachers want
them to attend to in an EFL vocabulary class? The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13(2), 336–361.
Walters, J. (2006). Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context. RELC Journal, 37(2) 176–190.
Wei, M. (2007). An examination of vocabulary learning of college-level learners of English in China.
The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9(2), 93–114.
Zhiliang, S. (2008). A comparative study of three learning strategies in EFL students’ incidental voca-
bulary acquisition. CELEA Journal, 31(6), 92–101. Retrieved from http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/82/82-
91.pdf

Biographical note

Seyyed Hatam Tamimi Sa’d holds an MA in English Language

Teaching (ELT) from Urmia University, Iran and is currently an English teach-
er in Iran Language Institute (ILI), Iran. He serves as a reviewer and editorial
board member for several journals including Journal of Sociolinguistics, British
Educational Research Journal (BERJ), TESL-EJ and The Canadian Journal for
New Scholars in Education (CJNSE). His interest lies in identity, acquisitional
and interlanguage pragmatics.

Fereshte Rajabi holds an MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Lan-

guage (TEFL) from Arak University, Iran. She has previously worked in the
Library of Foreign Languages and Islamic Resources (LIBFLIS), Iran, as the
administrator of Digital Resources section. Her research interests include dis-
course analysis, media studies and sociolinguistics.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.8 | No1 | Year 2018 163

Appendix A. Interview

1. Describe three vocabulary learning strategies that you consider effective.

2. Describe three vocabulary teaching strategies that you consider
ineffective.
3. Describe three vocabulary teaching strategies that you consider
ineffective.
4. How important is the role of the teacher and learner in vocabulary
learning? Assign a percentage to each.

Appendix B. Vocabulary Teaching Class Observation

Checklist

No. Technique Yes No

1 Teacher explains the (new) words in the foreign language.
Teacher explains the (new) words in the students’ native language
2
(i.e., use of translation).
3 Teacher draws figures on the board to explain the new vocabulary.
Teacher uses body language, gestures and motions to explain new
4
words.
Teacher asks one or some students to explain words to other stu-
5
dents.
Teacher asks students to make guesses as to what the new words
6
mean.
7 Teacher asks students to look up words in their dictionaries.
8 Teacher shows pictures to explain new vocabulary items.
Teacher uses example sentences to explain and contextualize new
9
words.
Teacher tells a short story, an anecdote or a joke to explain new
10
words.
Teacher associates new words with previously learned words to
11
explain meaning of new words.
Teacher asks students to make a mental image of something or
12
someone to explain meaning of new words.
Teacher groups words under one topic and attempts to relate them
13
to each other in terms of meaning on the board.
Teacher uses objects in class and realia to explain meaning of new
14
words.
Teacher contextualizes meaning of new words by bringing new texts
15
to class and reading them aloud.

16 Other: ......................................................................................................................